Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Transplantation and Clinical Virology, Department Biomedicine (Haus Petersplatz), University of Basel, Switzerland; 2Department of Virology, Helsinki
University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Finland; 3Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California; 4Department of
Microbiology, Hospital Universitario de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain; 5Roche Molecular Systems, Inc, Pleasanton, California; and 6Department of
Pathology, The John Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
Keywords.
Background. Quantication of cytomegalovirus (CMV) load is central to the management of CMV infections in
immunocompromised patients, but quantitative results currently differ signicantly across methods and laboratories.
Methods. The COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan CMV Test (CAP/CTM CMV test), developed using the rst
World Health Organization CMV standard in the calibration process, was compared to local assays used by 5 laboratories at transplant centers in the United States and Europe. Blinded plasma panels (n = 90) spiked with 2.186.7
log10 copies/mL and clinical plasma samples from immunocompromised patients (n = 660) were tested.
Results. Observed mean panel member concentrations by site and 95% condence intervals (CIs) of the data
combined across sites were narrower for CAP/CTM CMV test compared with local assays. The 95% CI in log10
copies/mL of the combined data per panel member for CAP/CTM CMV test vs comparator assays was .17 vs 1.5 at
2.18 log10 copies/mL; .14 vs .52 at 2.74 log10 copies/mL; .16 vs .6 at 3.3 log10 copies/mL; .2 vs 1.11 at 4.3 log10 copies/
mL; .21 vs 1.13 at 4.7 log10 copies/mL; and .18 vs 1.4 at 6.7 log10 copies/mL. In clinical specimens, constant and
variable quantication differences between the CAP/CTM CMV test and comparator assays were observed.
Conclusions. High interlaboratory agreement and precision of CAP/CTM CMV test results across 5 different
laboratories over 4 orders of magnitude suggest that this assay could be valuable in prospective studies identifying
clinical viral load thresholds for CMV treatment.
CMV; viral load; PCR; transplantation; standardization.
Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection causes significant morbidity and mortality in the posttransplant
period of both solid organ transplant (SOT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients [15].
367
METHODS
CAP/CTM CMV Test Colinearity to the First WHO CMV
International Standard
368
Hirsch et al
patients [17]. CMV QNAT, based most commonly on polymerase chain reaction (PCR), has largely replaced conventional methods owing to better overall performance, and clinical
guidelines now recommend the use of these assays for CMV
load monitoring in SOT and HSCT recipients to prevent or to
manage CMV replication and disease [4, 5, 7, 8].
One central issue that has emerged with the use of different
CMV PCR tests is the signicant interassay quantication variability, as demonstrated in multicenter studies with standardized panels [9, 10]. This lack of assay agreement complicates the
management of individual patients who may have testing performed in different laboratories and it has hampered the establishment of broadly applicable quantitative cutoff values that
can be used in clinical decision making, potentially negatively
impacting the management and long-term outcome of patients
at risk of the direct and indirect effects of CMV replication [1,
4, 5]. Therefore, in the clinical management of CMV after
transplantation, there is a signicant unmet medical need for
the development of standardized nucleic acid tests that deliver
comparable quantitative data across different laboratories.
The rst international standard for CMV QNAT has recently
been established by the World Health Organization (WHO)
Expert Committee on Biological Standardization [11]. This
CMV standard should help to improve interassay agreement.
However, assay-specic variability is still expected owing to underlying differences in test constituents, including varying
nucleic acid extraction methods, target-specic amplication efciencies, assay biochemistries, and operator-dependent variability. As recently suggested [12], these residual quantication
disparities could be solved through the widespread availability
of commercial PCR tests that encompass all assay steps (nucleic
acid preparation, reaction setup, calibration, amplication, and
detection) and demonstrate reliable interlaboratory quantication as dened by agreement and precision. Here, we report the
results of a multicenter international study designed to determine the comparability of quantitative data and precision of a
new, fully automated, Food and Drug Administrationapproved
CMV QNAT (COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan CMV Test
[CAP/CTM CMV test]) using a blinded panel across diverse
laboratories and to compare these 2 parameters among the 5
different assays currently used in these laboratories. Agreement
between the CAP/CTM CMV test and the diverse in-house
quantication assays was also dened using clinical plasma
specimens from immunocompromised individuals.
Agreement between CAP/CTM CMV test and the 5 quantitative PCR assays described above was investigated with plasma
samples collected at the study sites from immunocompromised patients monitored for CMV replication and disease.
Specimens were assayed only at the site that performed original testing. In addition, 403 samples from 135 HSCT recipients participating in the maribavir prophylaxis for prevention
of CMV phase 3 trial (NCT00411645) were provided by ViroPharma, Inc, to the study sites for PCR testing [21]. Only patients with plasma samples with a volume >600 L were
included in this analysis, and due to volume requirements for
in-house testing, site 2 did not quantify samples from the
maribavir prophylaxis trial. Plasma samples from the maribavir prevention trial were randomly distributed to the other 4
study sites. Institutional review board approval was obtained
at each institution for this study.
Statistical Analysis
369
RESULTS
Comparability and Reproducibility of Quantitative PCR Assays
With a Standardized CMV DNA Panel
370
Hirsch et al
Patient Population
Solid organ transplant recipients
(n = 107)
Hematopoietic stem cell transplant
recipients (n = 267)
HIV-infected patients (n = 9)
Other immunocompromised patients
(n = 13)b
Total No. of
Samples
Tested
No. of Valid
Test Resultsa
107
71
531
286
9
13
9
12
Only samples with paired results within the linear range of the polymerase
chain reaction assays were included in the comparison analysis.
371
372
Hirsch et al
Notes
Acknowledgments. The authors acknowledge Dr Stephen Villano at
ViroPharma, Inc, for providing samples from patients in the marabivir
phase 3 trial (NCT00411645); Michael Forman at Johns Hopkins Hospital;
Dr Alexis Dumoulin and the technicians at the Abteilung Infektionsdiagnostik, University of Basel; Dr Laura Mannonen, Dr Raisa Loginov, Dr
Ilkka Helanter, and the technicians at the Helsinki University Hospital;
Elisea Lomas at the Hospital Universitario de la Princesa; and Dr Tri Do
and Ula Cowen at Roche Molecular Systems, Inc, for assistance provided
in the preparation of the study.
Financial support. This work was supported by Roche Molecular
Systems, Inc, Pleasanton, California.
Potential conicts of interest. H. H. H. has received speaker honoraria
from Roche Diagnostics; S. A. and B. C. are employees of Roche Molecular
Systems, Inc; R. A. V. was an employee of Roche Molecular Systems, Inc;
A. V. has been a member of the Roche Diagnostics Scientic Advisory
Board, has been a consultant for Qiagen, and has received clinical trial
funding from Roche Molecular Systems and Qiagen. All other authors
report no potential conicts.
All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential
Conicts of Interest. Conicts that the editors consider relevant to the
content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
References
1. Gerna G, Lilleri D, Furione M, Baldani F. Management of human cytomegalovirus infection in transplantation: validation of virological
cut-offs for preemptive therapy and immunological cut-offs for production. New Microbiol 2011; 34:22954.
12. Kraft CS, Armstrong WS, Caliendo AM. Interpreting quantitative cytomegalovirus DNA testing: understanding the laboratory perspective.
Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54:17937.
13. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. COBAS TaqMan CMV Test FDA approved package insert. Branchburg, NJ: Roche, July 2012.
14. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Metrological traceability and its implementation; a report. CLSI document X5-R, Vol
26, No 10. ISBN 1-56238-598-4.
15. Abbate I, Finnstrom N, Zaniratti S, et al. Evaluation of automated extraction system in combination with Afgene CMV tender for CMV
DNA quantitative determination: comparison with nested PCR and
pp65 antigen test. J Virol Meth 2008; 151:615.
16. Koidl C, Bozic M, Marth E, Kessler HH. Detection of CMV DNA: is
EDTA whole blood superior to EDTA plasma? J Virol Meth 2008;
154:21012.
17. Sia IG, Wilson JA, Espy MJ, Paya CV, Smith TF. Evaluation of the
COBAS Amplicor CMV monitor test for detection of viral DNA in
specimens taken from patients after liver transplantation. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38:6006.
18. Piiparinen H, Hockerstedt K, Gronhagen-Riska C, Lautenschlager I.
Comparison of two quantitative CMV PCR tests, COBAS Amplicor
CMV Monitor and TaqMan assay, and pp65-antigenemia assay in the
determination of viral loads from peripheral blood of organ transplant
patients. J Clin Virol 2004; 30:25866.
19. Beckman C, Dumoulin A, Rinaldo CH, Hirsch HH. Comparison of a
UL111a real-time PCR and pp65 antigenemia for the detection of cytomegalovirus. J Med Virol 2011; 83:214350.
20. Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute (CLSI). EP9-A2. Method
comparison and bias estimation using patient samples; approved
guideline. 2nd ed. 2002.
21. Marty FM, Ljungman P, Papanicolaou GA, et al. Maribavir prophylaxis for prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in recipients of allogenic
stem cell transplants: a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2011; 11:28492.
373